An account of what I see, hear, smell, taste and touch in the city of Worcester, Massachusetts and beyond.

Sunday, February 17, 2008

I Heart Population Statistics

I have long stood by the opinion that one of the reasons for the constant frustration many of us feel as Worcesterites comes from the belief that we are bigger than we actually are. I have also long stood by the opinion that part of the fault of this lies within the surrounding towns and not with Worcester itself. I have finally found a little data to support this theory.

One of the facts that Worcester prides itself on is that we are the second biggest city in New England. It's a statistic that in our constant inferiority complex lets us feel like we have something over Providence and Springfield and and that we can downright hold our heads high and our noses in the air towards such villages as Hartford, Bridgeport and New Haven. Those people in Connecticut don't know a city from a one horse town now do they?

This pride is also a burden too because you can sit in Worcester and look at that statistic but then you go and visit these other cities and you notice something. You go to Providence and realize that Providence is just a flat out better city than Worcester. You go to Hartford and realize that downtown Hartford is awash with vibrancy and activity albeit during the day. You go to New Haven and find a vibrant nightlife and cultural scene. How can this be? Worcester is a bigger city than all these places. Why can't we have a bustling downtown? Why is it that our cultural landscape isn't as rich as some other cities? WHAT THE CHRIST IS WRONG WITH WORCESTER THAT THESE THINGS CAN'T HAPPEN HERE???!!!!!!!

Today I was looking around and came upon this entry on wikipedia. A little from the entry:

"A New England City and Town Area or NECTA is a geographic and statistical entity defined by the U. S. Office of Management and Budget, for use in describing aspects of the New England region of the United States. A NECTA is a region associated with a core urban area with a population of at least 10,000, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting and employment. NECTAs are analogous to Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) and are similarly classified as either metropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to Metropolitan Statistical Areas) or micropolitan NECTAs (corresponding to Micropolitan Statistical Areas). A micropolitan NECTA has an urban core with a population of at least 10,000 but less than 50,000 while a metropolitan NECTA has an urban core with a population of at least 50,000."

I am a bit of a geography geek. I look at lots of maps, read lots of statistics, and constantly compare my findings to my hometown. When comparing things you need to find the differences. Why is it that something works one place but it doesn't work in another. I have always noticed that most of the other bigger cities in New England are surrounded by smaller cities. Boston has its Cambridge, Quincy, Newton and Somerville. Providence has its Warwick and Pawtucket. Hartford it's West Hartford, East Hartford, and Weathersfield. Worcester has it's ... um ... Shrewsbury?

So according to the census bureau, the New England City and Town Area of Worcester actually ranks 7th in population behind Boston, Providence, Hartford, Bridgeport, Springfield and New Haven respectively. So out of all the bigger cities in New England our metropolitan area is dead last in population. Check out the numbers here.

We're still a city though. The next closest NECTA is Portland with almost 200,000 less. Here's the top ten:

A NECTA is a region associated with a core urban area with a population of at least 10,000, plus adjacent territory that has a high degree of social and economic integration with the core as measured by commuting and employment.I have felt for a very very long time that Worcester, for whatever reason, hasn't developed an ingrained culture like many other cities do. You spend your childhood in the suburbs, you grow up, you get an apartment in the city, you meet someone, you get married, you buy a house, you start a family, you sell the house in the city and move to the suburbs, your kids grow up, the circle of life continues. You have an area filled with generations of people who are Worcester people. People who are "from Worcester" who don't actually live in the city limits. A local culture that revolves around the city of Worcester. I am not sure about Bridgeport and Springfield, because I think those two cities may be in the same boat that we are in, but I do believe that in the Boston, Providence, Hartford and New Haven areas you will most likely find generations of families like this. Not just living in the cities themselves but living in the suburbs. People that live one or two towns out from the city but know that "the best fresh baked bread around is at this little place", or "damn if you want to get a good burger you need to go to this place, I went there with my Grandfather every Sunday one summer when I was a kid."

I think this does exist in Worcester but I don't think it's as far reaching as in most other cities. I think there are a ton of people that live in the actual city who might make statements like this but I think you get into the bordering towns and that number drops sharply and once you start getting into the Oxfords, Charltons and Spencers of the world I would guess that the numbers drop even more.

Of course this is all just an observation not any type of solution. Just something I wanted to write out for the people like me who like to ponder the problems of our little corner of the world called Worcester. To go into the reasons why the circle of life I described above does not happen and why the populations of towns like Shrewsbury, Auburn, Holden, and Millbury did not grow along with Worcester's population is probably a very long and complex conversation. It is something to think about though.

3 comments:

I think the numbers you found are kind of silly. why would you count Fall River with Providence and warwick. Fall river is in massachusetts and most of the people that live there work in Fall river or south of Boston. They should have counted Worcester it's surrounding towns if they are going to work it that way.

Fall River Population (year 2000): 91,938. Estimated population in July 2006: 91,474 (-0.5% change)

Providence Population (year 2000): 173,618. Estimated population in July 2006: 175,255 (+0.9% change)

Warwick Population (year 2000): 85,808. Estimated population in July 2006: 85,925 (+0.1% change)

They are all seperate cities and people living ion such area would not want to be considered part of other such areas. The drive from Providence to Fall River is 25 minutes, in another state, over a huge river...

I think that is the point though. The US Office of Management and Budget in their research has concluded that Fall River is part of the greater Providence metro area.

Is it really? Tough to say and you have a valid point about Fall River. In the times that I have been there I have felt that Fall River is it's own place and does seem to have it's own thing going on seperate from Providence. I was actually surprised that they did not include it with New Bedford to tell you the truth.

Warwick though? No way. Warwick is part is as much a part of Providence culture as hot weiners and coffee milk. You can be across state lines and still be part of a cities metro area too. Good examples in New England are Enfield CT for Springfield, Seekonk MA for Providence and even Thompson CT for Worcester.

There are numerous reasons why Worcester doesn't have the big city feel that a city of it's population should have. My whole point with the post is that one reason I don't hear get very much dialogue is that while we are the second biggest city in New England we are no where near close to the being the second biggest metro area. According to the US Office of Management and Budget's findings there are far less people who live outside the city limits of Worcester to whom Worcester is a huge part of their everyday lives versus cities like Boston, Providence and Hartford.

My hypothesis is that this is a big reason why cities like Providence and Hartford feel more metropolitan than Worcester. We may have more people actually living in the city but they have a considerable amount more living outside the city and coming into the city everyday to use the things the city has to offer.

My goal for bringing these things to light is the hope that the citizens of Worcester think a little bit about not just how our own politics and policies effect our daily lives but also about how the politics and policies of Shrewsbury, Grafton, Millbury, Auburn, Leicester, Paxton, Holden and West Boylston effect our daily lives. Worcester has been a city of considerable population for sometime. Why did that population not sprawl into the suburbs the way it has done in all the other larger cities in New England? What do the policies and politics of the surrounding towns have to do with this? How much of Worcester's problem is the city of Worcester's problem and how much of it is the problem of the region of Central Massachusetts? All questions that in my opinion are worth thinking over when contemplating any issues you may have with the city and whether or not you are satisfied with your life here.

I think that Worcester lacks one thing. WATER. I have always thought there is no way to get where Providence is as far as a city because we do not have water. You know the cute little bars that are on the Marina in Providence draw that "ocean" feel which people like. I think people need to believe in a change for this industrial like city that has died. I know many people that are fans of the life in Providence or Boston and would 100% support life like that here.

About Me

I live in Worcester, Massachusetts. I try to make the best of it by getting excited about the good things it does offer while at the same time thinking about how it could be better and live up to it's potential.